peelingparadigms

I am just getting started on this blog, so I posted various ideas I've been discussing elsewhere, as to the nature of reality and how it forms our understanding of it.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Convective Reality

These are a few issues tied together by a central theme;

The notion of time as a dimension is based on the irreversibility of macroscopic events, which creates our sense of past, present and future.

A very simple and basic point has been overlooked here; While the arrow of time for the observer proceeds from past events to future ones, the arrow of time for these circumstances proceeds from being in the future, to being in the past.

Einstein didn't fully apply the basic principle of relativity to time. Relatively speaking, content and context go in opposite directions. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise.

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. This information is a product of relationships of the manifest energy. As there is no absolute frame, any action is balanced by an "equal and opposite" reaction. Objective reality is the energy. Time is only a function of the subjective information.

The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. A day is measured by the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but the reality is the earth is rotating west to east. As our day fades, others are dawning.

Think of a factory; The product moves from initiation to completion, but the production line faces the other way, with its mouth consuming raw materials and finished product being expelled. Life is the same. Our lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin. Do we go through time, or does time go through us?

The mind is a form of factory and the products are individual thoughts. Our senses continually take in information and out of this, we construct coherent conceptual units. Meanwhile the mind continues to absorb fresh information and as the particular thought matures, it factors in less of this additional information. At some point a new thought has taken shape and displaced the previous thought.

Time then, isn't a dimension because the frame of reference does not constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes another dimension. It is a process in which the point and frame move relative to their respective influence on one another.

A clock which would represent this process would have no face, but innumerable hands going both directions, at various speeds. The sum of this motion would be zero. Subtracting out any particular hand as a point of reference would leave the remaining hands with a net motion in the opposite direction. As we are part of that frame of reference, we only see the hand move.

Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past is the influences which defined current order and the future is the sources of energy which will motivate that order. When the order of the past is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it, so the future is a continuation of the past. When the order is a closed set, the energy accumulates in open spaces and the future is a reaction to the past.

Time is the fundamental manifestation of complexity theory, with the present as the phase transition between order(past) and chaos(future). Like a collapsing wave function, the future is pure circumstance, as a potentially infinite number of factors are involved, while the past is pure judgment, because every possible influence has been factored. Of course, in reality, the wave never actually collapses. It just keeps rolling along, with the medium effectively going the opposite direction.

Time is a tensor method of measuring motion. Temperature is a scalar method of measuring motion.

Consider statistical measures of the economy as a form of temperature reading, a general level of activity against a prevailing scale. Now if we were to follow an individual through the larger economy, or the activity of a particular atom in a fluid, it would be a tensor measure. The reason this form of measurement matters so much to us is that we are that individual.

(The next part is in basic conflict with the basic paradigm of modern cosmology, the Big Bang Theory. While simplistic, it does tie into my overall premise, so I include it at the expense of potential disagreement.)

This understanding of time originally grew out of a basic impression that the Big Bang Theory was wrong. It first occurred to me in reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, when he raised to point that Omega=1. In other words, for the universe to be as stable as it is the force of expansion must be in inverse proportion to gravitational collapse. If universal expansion is completely balanced by gravitational collapse, where do they come up with the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to be growing? It makes more sense as a convective process, with radiant energy expanding and mass collapsing. In this context, the expansion of lightwaves, which create redshift, are as fundamental to light itself, as gravity is to mass. These two impulses balance because they are different sides of the same process.

Out of this, I've managed to construct a very simple model of universe, with few loose ends.

If light is effectively expanding, but the universe isn't, this would cause additional pressure on existing gravitational systems, resulting in the excess spin to galaxies that is currently ascribed to dark matter. It would also explain the Pioneer effect. In a sense then, if we think of gravity as curving space one way, then light curves it ever so slightly the other way. The effect over inter-galactic distances adds up.

The concept of dark energy is proposed to explain why the redshift of distant sources is proportionally less then that of closer sources. As the BB model assumes the earliest expansion is due to the initial singularity, the question is what causes the additional effect. If we accept that this redshift is a property of light itself, the question then becomes the opposite; What reduces the redshift of the further sources? I think it is because this light goes through more intermediate residual gravity fields and the lensing effect amounts to a blueshift, which neutralizes some of the redshift of this light.

The reason the cosmic microwave background radiation is smooth is because space can only hold a certain level of radiation in solution becore it starts to condense out as basic forms of matter. So 2.7k is the phase transition.

Galactic black holes are basically the eye of the storm and most of the activity is what we see, the collapsing mass and radiating energy.

How this ties into my observations about time is that the arrow of time for content is collapsing mass, going from birth to death, while the energy radiating back out is context, continually expanding, both in the creation and growth of new matter and the radiating away of old matter. Remember that Einstein was compelled to add the cosmological constant because his theory of gravity had the universe collapsing to a point and he only had that one dimension/direction of time.

I have a few other snide asides to Big Bang Theory, such as if space is created at the singularity, then it would take light as long to cross the initial universe as it does the present and so why does light not slow down as we peer back into the beginning? If light is constant, then space is constant and all these old galaxies which must have formed in the first few hundred million years would only have a few hundred million years to fly away from each other and should all be in a bunched at one point in the sky. Yes, I know, Inflation Theory. Universal fudge factor.

As for quantum theory, this focus on the subatomic reality as a function of discrete particles results in confusion. If we were to look at it from the other direction, that process is fundamental and the particles are secondary, then we would be thinking of these particles as nodes in a network, rather then specific objects. Rather then photons as a little BB like object, think of them as a cross section of the the trunk of a lightning bolt, or tree and the reason they transmit specific quanta of energy has more to do with transition factors of the system, rather then the weight of a particular object. This would go a long way in explaining the connectivity issues.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific establishment is about as likely to reconsider its standard models as the Catholic Church is about to reconsider its dogma. Like any entity, it will eventually fall and the springtime of the succeeding era will flourish with fresh ideas. The fact is, though, this pattern applies across many aspects of established paradigms, from religion to politics and economics. As this convective cycle is also applicable to issues in all these fields, I think there is the potential to combine it into one larger worldview that could not be bottled up by any particular ruling establishment.

Monotheistic religion contains logical fallacies which are at the base of many of our other problems. It is based on the assumption of the spiritual absolute as being at the intellectual apex. For one thing, the absolute is the equilibrium around which opposing elements are balanced, so if one is to propose a spiritual absolute, it would be the most elemental form of consciousness out of which we rise and to which we fall, not a state of grace or omnipotent being from which we fell and seek to return. Good and bad are not some overarching metaphysical duel, but the binary code of the biological computer and the intellect is a bottom up process of distinction and judgment. While this mistake is understandable, given the age of the concepts involved and the political circumstances they evolved under, by assigning both source and direction to the apex, it creates a logical paradigm in which the political models that grow out of it invest all authority to those at the top, without the necessary testing and questioning a ground up model demands of its efforts. Science understands that reality is fundamentally bottom up and incidentally top down, but our current primary religious theory doesn't take this reality into account. While we have managed to shed the monarchism that was most directly founded on this assumption of the ruler as closest to the rule of God, there are very strong elements in the current administration which are operating under the influence of this concept.

I must add that I am not an atheist. Theism assumes consciousness creates order out of chaos, while atheism assumes order creates consciousness out of chaos. Order and chaos are descriptive states of logic and the relationship does not adequately explain consciousness, so I am left to assume it is some base property of which we are a magnification and consolidation. It is not a unit, per se, because as I explained in the description of time, all units are components of larger processes. One is a set. Oneness is a state.

As every point in space is the center of its universe and a subjective point of reference is required to create any frame of reference, it should be noted that reality is objectively chaotic and only subjectively ordered. This rules out a fundamentally deterministic reality, as the puppet pulls back on the strings, giving meaning to whatever is on the other end. We are a factor.

The current political balance between Republican and Democrat is a good example of the convective process; The republic is a unit and as such it is governed from the top down. Democracy is a process. It gains it legitimacy from the bottom up. Communism and capitalism are another. As Communism proposed the state and economy as one unit, it became necessary to govern it from the top down, contrary to Marx's original assumption that the state would "wither away." Capitalism proposes the economy as an ecosystem, a process in which individual corporate units rise and fall according to their vitality. In fact, as Russian communism fell due to its destruction of basic initiative, Chinese communism has managed to incorporate itself as a very effective corporate unit within the jungle of world capitalism.

On both the political and religious fronts, there is a common mistaking of extremes for absolutes, as our linear thinking leads us to believe that if we push hard enough in any one direction we will achieve some final solution, rather then just building up momentum for the pendulum to swing ever further in the opposite direction, always around the point of balance which is the true absolute. If we can understand this cyclical reality, we might be able to use it to the advantage of life on this planet, not just be an intellectual victim of it.

In that the economy is also a convective cycle, energy in the form of labor, materials and ideas rise up, while wealth, civil order and social security precipitate down. Supply side theory has created a situation where far more has been rising then is effectively used or precipitating down and the results are huge storm clouds of surplus wealth boiling over a parched economy. For reference, consider where the money the government borrows would go, if it were not being recycled through the public sector. We already have a situation of serious asset inflation and this money would just increase the effect. Government borrowing is effectively a nationalization of surplus wealth, but rather than actually taking it, the revenue stream of the government is being transferred to those with surplus wealth in the first place, which only adds to the problem.

The fact that Social Security is a direct transfer is one of the primary reasons it is so efficient. Only as much money can be saved as can be invested and there is a dearth of investment vehicles in the current situation. It is a situation similar to the electric industry. As it would be prohibitively expensive to build the battery storage for the amounts in question, it has to be used as it is generated. Creating the investment vehicles necessary to store private accounts would be like storage batteries for the electric industry.

I first started questioning economic pronouncements when trying to figure out how Paul Volcker cured inflation by raising interest rates. Yes, it is started by loose money, but reverse engineering in not always so simple. By raising interest rates, his solution for the oversupply of money was to raise the cost! Government borrowing is what brought inflation under control, after supply side economics squeezed it out of the general economy, the government skimmed it off the top and then spent it. As public spending supports private investment, rather then competing with it, the effect was compounded. The boom of the 80's and 90's had more to do with the baby boom going through its most productive years, than anything else.

In 1996, Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." My first thought was, Well thank God it isn't my money, or it would be worthless." The logic behind this insight is that as a medium of exchange, money is actually a form of public commons, much like the highway system. Under our current ideology of individualism, we assume it is private property. To use the roads as an analogy, it would be as if every time a new road was built, everyone tried to claim as much as possible. The eventual result would be that everything would be paved over and no one would be able to get anywhere. We are close to reaching that situation with our monetary system, as every aspect of life is judged according to the bottom line and the economy is still about to seize up.

Money and government are two sides of the same coin. One is rights, the other is responsibilities. Money is like processed sugar, so if we were to learn to maintain a more organic, wholistic society and maintain wealth and value within every aspect of our lives and not continually drain it out to put in some bank, then government would be forced to organize itself along similar lines.

This covers alot of disciplines, but it does so within the framework of a basic pattern.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

From a discussion on the nature of time and why the Big Bang theory doesn't make sense

I've been following this subject since the late eighties, upon hearing that "omega=1." If the forces of expansion and gravitational attraction balance, there is no overall expansion and a convective process makes more sense. From this, it grew. This is a very basic model, but it leads to a further point;

If gravity causes our understanding of space to contract and matter sheds radiation, is seems logical that expansion is fundamental to radiation/light, not just something affecting it. Matter contracts, energy expands.

If space expands and the universe doesn't, this results in external pressure on gravitational systems.Which explains the additional effect currently assigned to dark matter.

Why dark energy? The redshift of distant sources is proportionally less than those of closer ones. If redshift is a constant, the question might be what reduces distant light, not what increases closer sources. A possible explanation might be in that distant light crosses more residual gravity fields and this compresses the waves; blueshift reducing redshift...

As a convective cycle, radiation expands out and matter precipitates inward. Black holes are the eye of the storm and CMBR is the stable atmosphere. By the time matter reaches the horizon line of the black hole, its energy has mostly been radiated back out. 2.7k is the radiation saturation level of space, at which matter starts to precipitate back out, collapsing into the gravitational vortex.

Light is still curved inward by gravity, because its outward curvature is overwhelmed in the vicinity of mass.

In the course of exploring this, a far more basic insight occurred to me;

Time isn't a dimension, it is a process with opposing directions. Time is a measure of motion, specifically, that of content against context. The context isn't an absolute, so this frame of reference is going the opposite direction of the point of reference. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise. While the unit of time is going from beginning to end, the process of time is going the other direction, toward beginnings and shedding the old like dead skin.

Think of a factory. The product goes from initiation to completion, while the production line points the other direction. Its future is in the raw material and the finished product is the past. Life is the same. The individual goes from birth to death, while the species goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

We tend to think of units of time as sequential, but in reality they overlap. At one longitude, one day follows the next, but days around the world overlap.The unit is created as the sun goes from east to west. The process is the earth rotating west to east, with the energy draining from one location as it pours into another. Just as life drains from past generations as it is pouring into new ones.

Reality is energy recording information. The amount of energy remains the same, so old information is erased as new is recorded. Objective reality is the energy, what exists. Subjective reality is the information, constantly changing. Past is what is erased, present is what exists and future is what is yet to be. Time is a measure of the subjective.

All energy is in flux, so any point moves against context and as Newton said, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Your context moves through you as you move through it. It is a matter of perspective, what defines is context and what is defined is content. A process is a unit within a larger context.

We think of past proceeding the future, as past events proceed future ones, but events are first in the future, then in the past.

This raises the question as to what space is. We refer to it as three dimensional, but this reference frame is an abstraction. Any number of such frames can define the same space, so while a map of space may be three dimensional, the territory is infinitely dimensional.

The idea that space is curved is derived from the assumption that it is only the context for physical properties and can so only be measured in terms of their motion. Now this motion is measured as a function of such properties traveling a distance and distance constitutes a line segment, so it is one dimensional. Even our abstract reference frames are three dimensional, but we judge the reality of space on the basis of a component of an abstraction.

Reality is not a manifestation of the abstract. The abstract is an approximation of reality.

Geometry never incorporated zero. Assuming the point as the center of a reference frame equals one, what is zero in geometry, other then empty space? (Consider that 4x0=0, but that 4'x0'=4'. Four feet is four feet, but if you wish to assign it a factor of zero, then it should have consequences.)

In so far as current theory suggests and observations support, space is ultimately flat, in that all gravitational collapse and universal expansion balance out. Every curvature of the path of traveling mass exists in a larger equilibrium where the tension of any particular disequilibrium is balanced out.

At the temperature of absolute zero, there is no motion and therefore no time, but the assumption isn't that there is no space.

Space is not a reference frame. It is equilibrium. In fact, science generally accepts this equilibrium, considering matter and anti-matter.

Space is the absolute, as well as infinite.

The question is how this relates to the cosmology. Einstein proposed the cosmological constant because he saw gravity as collapsing space to a point and felt there must be an opposing force.

Gravity represents one side of this convective cycle, that of matter collapsing from the aether to the vortex. Defined units going from beginning to end. Energy is the process, expanding out, expanding the matter it enters, going on to the next unit as the old breaks down. So gravitational collapse represents the direction of time for the unit, going from beginning to end and radiation expansion is that of the process, continually going on to the next as it is draining from the previous.

These are not separate concepts, but prespectives on the same process. A unit of matter exists as a unit of time, beginning to end. The Bible is a narrative unit, Genesis to Armageddon. The Big Bang is also, singularity to fadeout/big crunch. All units exist within larger processes. What was the energy these worlds consist of doing prior to their beginnings and what will it be doing after. As this energy is the present, the idea of time as an objective dimension is meaningless.

So the idea of the Big Bang is like looking at the horizon and thinking you fall off the flat earth there.

Of course, I'm sure much of this is generally accepted here, but I thought I could add a little more perspective to it.

Regards,John Brodix Merryman Jr. Sparks, Maryland

Reply Quote

ED,

It's always good to hear a fresh perspective. Some of it sounds similar to the tensegrity dynamic I've described between matter and aether and the matter/aether cycle. I have described time as observation. We can't experience time without something to observe. Motion is not necessary for one can experience time while thinking. Having a thought constitutes an observation. One can also experience time while observing objects that are not in motion and while the observer is not in motion. While one is in a deep sleep one may not experience the passage of time, but observations are being made, so time takes place. One has to use a very broad definition of observation to apply it this way. Inanimate objects make "observations" by virtue of any interaction with another object or surroundings. One might also refer to observation as data exchange. Matter and energy = data, time = data processing.

It's always good to hear a fresh perspective.

Thank you. Usually the fact that I'm not a member of the academic community gets my thoughts dismissed out of hand.

Some of it sounds similar to the tensegrity dynamic I've described between matter and aether and the matter/aether cycle.

I'll have to look up that up. The more basic an idea is, the more universal it is.

I have described time as observation. We can't experience time without something to observe. Motion is not necessary for one can experience time while thinking. Having a thought constitutes an observation.

I actually would include thought into this relationship of the process and its units. The mind is a process of accumulating information, much like a production line accumulates raw material. The product it produces are thoughts. Consider that our senses absorb far more information than we can use, so our minds bundle what seemingly fits together into these idea units that are individual thoughts. Meanwhile, the mind is accumulating more information and going on to the next thought, as we mull current ones and lose track of previous ones. People who develop little control over this process have attention deficit disorder(me), while those who cannot let go of a particular thought, but put all additional information and energy into supporting it, are obsessive.

It is also my impression that this is a main reason why our sense of time speeds up. As we grow older, we develop an intellectual framework and it takes less energy and information to form each successive thought, so they develop more rapidly.

This quanitized mental process, more so than our personal individuality, is also why we tend to think in terms of units, rather than processes. Obviously, the very process of thinking is to form a conceptual unit. Thus the tendency to think in terms of gods, then God and now the universe as a unit. Even the quantum effort to define both space and time in terms of quantized units. As my observation points out, yes, time is a unit and as such it is quantized, but it is also a process which creates these quanta.

One can also experience time while observing objects that are not in motion and while the observer is not in motion.

It is still, as you say, "data exchange," such as carried by the motion of light waves.

While one is in a deep sleep one may not experience the passage of time, but observations are being made, so time takes place.

In the dream state, these units of thought are forming out of stored energy and are not as distinct, although they become more so when we seek to remember them when awake.

One has to use a very broad definition of observation to apply it this way. Inanimate objects make "observations" by virtue of any interaction with another object or surroundings. One might also refer to observation as data exchange. Matter and energy = data, time = data processing.

Order, animate or otherwise, is fundamentally subjective, in that it requires a point of focus, even if this is the center of gravity between orbiting bodies. Objectivity is fundamentally chaotic, as every point is the center of its own universe.

Staring into the abysss

Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That is why there are so many professional priests and politicians, but very few philosophers.

The Theory of Relativity overlooks the fact that, relativistically, time goes in both directions. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise. Or, as Newton put it, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Neither content or context are absolute.

Reality is not a manifestation of the abstract. The abstract is an approximation of reality.

Theists think consciousness creates order. Atheists think order creates consciousness. The fact is that consciousness has a love/hate relationship with order.

If there is a spiritual reality, it, like physical reality, is fundamentally bottom up and only incidentally top down.

Intelligence is knowledge. Wisdom is editing it.

The reason life seems meaningless is because meaning is static and reductionistic, while life is dynamic and wholistic.

Life always has purpose, or else...

Relativity invalidates determinism. The puppet is pulling back on the string, giving purpose to whatever is on the other end.

People think linear, but reality is relative. There are two sides of the coin, even if you can only see one at a time.

The problem in this country is that the paradigm has run its logical course. The purpose of capitalism is to produce capital and we have oceans of it floating like huge thunderclouds over the economy. The economy is a convective cycle, in which materials, labor, ideas rise up and material wealth, civil order, social comforts precipitate down. Given the emphasis on the supply side, more has been rising then has been precipitating. Henry Ford understood a hundred years ago that the workers needed to afford the goods for the system to work. The irony is the rich are destroying the system they benefit the most from. Gold is just a metal. Public acceptance makes it valuable. Same with money. Money is a tool, not a god. It is a form of economic circulatory system. Like the highway system, it is a public construct. The people who hate government and love money are just not very bright. They are footsoldiers to the corporate neo-feudalism. Effectively, money is a form of public commons, so what we have is a tragedy of the commons, as everyone tries to claim as much as they can. It seems doubtful that we are going to develop a larger social consciousness anytime soon, but when the oil does run out....Those Hummers and McMansions are not going to be as cool anymore. Actually, those big box houses are going to be down right cold.

This is my idea on government budgeting;

An concept which occurred to me back in the eighties, when Bush Sr. was dealing with the deficit and the line item veto was being mentioned, was to take the budget bills, break them down into all their items, then have each legislator assign a percentage value to each item. The bill would then be reassembled in order of preference and the President would draw the line at what was to be funded.

The buck stops with the President, but he wouldn't have personal control over individual issues and legislators. It would also require legislators to at least glance at what they are voting for. They would also have to develop a network for their own issues and not have the leadership deciding everything. This would emphasize the bottom up process of the legislature, as opposed to the top down order of the executive. It would streamline the process, even incorporate the veto function within it, rather than the current chaos of jamming everything through in the largest possible chunks.

As most pet projects will only have the real support of a few legislators, they will end up far down the list and any that do make it up will require the cooperation among many legislators. This would lead to specific projects being tailored as efficiently as possible, as well as having to have considerable value. The pork would itself be as lean as possible.

I originally conceived of the percentage voting as a way to prevent too many items from having the same score, but what it would also do is allow individual legislators the option of bending under pressure, rather than breaking. If they are being pressured, rather than changing their vote, they could give up a few more points than they might otherwise have. This would put them in a much stronger bargaining position. For one thing if what they were promised in return wasn't fufilled, rather then having to stand up to the forces which steamrolled them the first time, they would have maintained a degree of backbone and would only give up less points then had they been satified. Or find another group to join. This would drastically change the nature of the leadership. As it is today, it is most effective as a steamroller that once it knocks down a few members, has even more momentum to knock down more and little incentive to really satisfy any but the most favored or pliant. If we can make individual legislators into more individual operaters within the process and provide them with a mechanism for expressing nuance, this would work against corralling them into one side or the other and make the center the source of power.

Speaking only as an observer here, if legislators gained the reputation for being focused on their work and the system channelled it in an effective manner, this would raise the general respectability of the profession. It would also complicate the clarity of their voting record, so that it reduces their profile for the more mindless smear campaigns they have to deal with. Maybe the voters would start doing nuance, as well.

As I see it, liberalism is social expansion and conservatism is civil consolidation. Those institutions which expand knowledge and power tend to be liberal; education, media, sciences. Those which consolidate this energy tend to be conservative, business, government. These definitions do get blended, though. The state social programs of the 20th century became stagnant by the seventies, leading to Reagan's libertarian expansionism. This has naturally hardened into Bush's pure conservativism. Do you ever hear Bush referred to as a Libertarian? It is a natural process; The passage from spring to winter is the linear narrative, beginning to end. The process then sheds the shell and goes on to the next generation. There is a lot more going on here than just politics and economics, because our religious paradigms have become intrinsically bound up in this cycle as well. To make a quick observation on that; Monotheism developed early in the process of intellectual evolution and it doesn't take into account that one is not the absolute. A universal state of oneness isn't a set of one. This misunderstanding is why there are so many religions, sects, cults all claiming to be the one way. If there is a spiritual absolute, logically, it is the essence out of which we rise and to which we fall, not a state of grace from which we fell and seek to return. Sorry to get off topic here, but the religious right is preparing for the day after, it's time others give it a little thought.

About Me

I grew up on a horse farm and after going through the marriage thing, training horses, running a riding school, I split off from my ex and am now back on the home farm, in business with one of my sisters. As a younger child, growing up in a large workaholic family, I'm something of the outlier. Thus my philosophical bent.